Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AE Senior Thesis 2004University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian GendusoStructural Option
Structural Redesign of a Perimeter Diagrid Lateral System
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Building Introduction
General InformationMulti-use8 stories - 220,000 ft2
$50.7 millionDesign Architect – Bernard Tschumi ArchitectsDesign Engineer – Arup, New York
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Building Introduction
SiteUniversity of Cincinnati “Varsity Village” – Cincinnati, Ohio
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Building Introduction
Architectural LayoutCurved perimeter5-story atriumPartially above existing facilities
N
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Structural System Description
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
DiagridTriangulated “deep beam” frameFunctions as both gravity and lateral systemConstructed from steel wide flange shapesWelded or bolted for full rigidityFully insulated and clad in precast concrete
Structural System DescriptionV Columns
Fabricated from heavy wide-flanges or built-up boxesRigidly connect to the diagrid and substructureHelp transfer lateral load, primarily in North-South direction
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural System DescriptionBraced Frames
Four typesHelp carry lateral load from bottom of diagrid to foundationEast-West direction only
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Problem Statement
Three main concernsHeavy diagridConnection intensiveLimited views
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Problem Statement
GoalsAddress the three main concerns1) Reduce structure weight2) Reduce connection complexity3) Maximize viewable window space
AdditionallyIncrease overall structural efficiencyDecrease overall building costEnsure construction feasibilityMinimize interior impactMaintain building shapeMaintain floor height
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Design Philosophy
Become an “architect-engineer”Aesthetic qualityPractical application
Unique yet sensibleAlter the look and feelMaintain shape, height, space layout
Innovative architecture demands innovativeengineering solutions!
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Redesign Approach
Solution Area ConceptSolution Area I - Changing the materialSolution Area II – Modifying the geometrySolution Area III – Removing it altogether
Progressively disruptive!
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Redesign Approach
Breadth Areas
Daylighting StudyFaçade will changeAttempt to integrate daylighting into new exteriorQualitative assessment
Construction StudyErection sequenceMaterial layout planning
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Structural Redesign
Solution Area IChanging the Material of the Diagrid
5 different materialsSteel wide flangeRound/rectangular HSSGlulam timber
Precast concreteCast-in-place concrete
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Tabular ResultsMaterial Mat. Cost Availability Lead time Erect. time Flexibility
Wide Flanges 75 100 75 100 80
Rectangular HSS 75 95 75 100 80
Round HSS 75 95 75 100 80
Glulam Timber 40 80 75 100 50
Precast 60 100 90 75 100
Cast-in-place 100 100 100 60 100
1.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7
Material Durability Weight Labor Cost Fire Resist. Size
Wide Flanges 90 100 100 70 95
Rectangular HSS 90 90 100 70 95
Round HSS 90 90 100 70 100
Glulam Timber 40 60 90 80 50
Precast 100 30 75 100 70
Cast-in-place 100 30 60 100 70
0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
88.6 87.1
65.7
79.477.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Wide Flanges HSS Glulam Timber Precast Cast-in-place
Material
Sco
re
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Stick with steel wide flanges
Overall Results
Solution Area IIModifying the Diagrid Geometry
Structural Redesign
Two main ways to accomplish this:
1) Open up the grid
John Hancock Center
2) Adjust configuration
Central China Television Tower
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Configurations
0 1 2
3 4 5a
5b 5c 6
3 3 3 3
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
ConsiderationsStructural EfficiencyStructural StabilityArchitectural ImpactFloor Framing ImpactMaterial CostComplexity
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
2D STAAD Model
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Str. Eff. Redundancy Deflection Architecture Flr. Framing Mat. Cost ComplexityCase Weight Score % Score in. Score Index Score Index Score Index Score Index Score
0 42170 0.79 71.6 1.00 0.029 1.00 100 1.00 100 1.00 100 0.70 100 0.501 36192 0.92 54.4 0.76 0.059 0.49 90 0.90 80 0.80 80 0.88 75 0.672 51648 0.64 42.5 0.59 0.079 0.37 75 0.75 70 0.70 70 1.00 50 1.003 33417 0.99 53.4 0.75 0.044 0.66 90 0.90 80 0.80 80 0.88 75 0.674 65833 0.50 46.0 0.64 0.095 0.31 75 0.75 70 0.70 70 1.00 50 1.00
5a 40845 0.81 64.3 0.90 0.037 0.78 95 0.95 90 0.90 90 0.78 85 0.595b 45110 0.74 58.8 0.82 0.057 0.51 95 0.95 80 0.80 85 0.82 80 0.635c 68016 0.49 66.3 0.93 0.074 0.39 95 0.95 70 0.70 80 0.88 75 0.676 33176 1.00 69.0 0.96 0.029 1.00 90 0.90 100 1.00 95 0.74 100 0.50
Weight 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4
Structural Redesign
Tabular Results
ObservationsVarying member length has a substantial impact on structural efficiency.In general, there is a noticeable tradeoff between architectural impact and cost.High system redundancy helps control deflection.
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Overall Results
87.577.6
67.7
82.0
64.4
82.674.8
69.4
90.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 5c 6
Case
Sco
re
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Conclusion
Original
Case 6Stick with the original diagrid configuration!
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
A whole new approachDiagrid is eliminatedMove lateral system within the buildingCurtain wall becomes new building enclosure
Development phasesConceptual DesignSchematic DesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction Documents
Solution Area IIIRemoving the Diagrid
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Conceptual Design
Perimeter Truss
Interior Hat Truss Cantilevers Over Columns Cantilevers Over Girders
Level 600 Truss Reverse Truss
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Pro-Con Comparison
Option Advantages Disadvantages RatingInterior Hat Truss Hidden, flexible, can be applied over whole building Small cantilevers remain, construction sequence will be an issue, truss
will add depth to total height, some openings may need to be adjusted, tensile columns
2
Cantilevers Over Columns
Invisible structure, no height increases Backpinning will be a major issue, no columns can be put through auditorium 6
Cantilevers Over Girders
Hidden, flexible, no height increases Floor layout will have to be changed drastically, downward slant through auditorium will be extremely hard to negotiate, open space prevents girder from reaching columns 5
Level 600 Truss Truss can be deep and efficient through mechanical room
Truss will interfere with some mechanical equipment, layout of some public space will have to be replanned, combination of tensile and compression columns
4
Perimeter Truss Out of the way of the rest of the building, very efficient, can be applied over whole building
Height increase, construction sequence will be an issue, tensile columns1
Reverse Truss Provides both gravity and lateral stiffness, fairly efficient, no height increase
Not flexible, diagonals will interfere with spaces and atrium layout will have to change 3
Option Advantages Disadvantages RatingBraced Frames Braced frames from Level 100-500 are already in place,
no impact on floor-to-floor height, less labor than rigid frame
Reduces usable interior space, placement will be a slight issue
1
Moment Frames Maintains interior spaces, potentially less steel weight Predominant grid system is not available to develop sufficient frame action, potentially deeper beams 3
Shear Walls No impact on floor-to-floor height Heavier loads on foundation, reduces usable interior space, placement will be an issue, introduces concrete construction on site 2
Gravity System
Lateral System
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
with Braced Frames
Structural Redesign
System Selection
Perimeter Truss
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)
Perimeter truss
Pinned connection
Floor beam sweepColumn spacingPinned vs. fixed connectionsColumn deformation compatibilityFire resistanceThermal movementTruss heightTruss lateral bracingCorrosionBraced frame placement
Schematic Design10 Considerations
Precast concrete parapet
Bottom truss chord
Top truss chord
Rigid insulation
Truss diagonal
FireproofingSupporting roof beam
Lateral brace
Top truss chord
Flexible connection
W14x26W14x53W14x82W14x233
Design Development
Structural Redesign
ETABS Model
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Virtual Work
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structural Redesign
Deflections
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
1 2 3 4
Trial #
Def
lect
ion
(in)
Faile
d
Faile
d
Que
stio
nabl
e
Acc
epta
ble
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Construction Documents
Structural Redesign
Weight (tons)Member Group Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Trial #4 Trial #5 Trial #6 Trial #7Truss Horizontals 39.1 47.6 57.2 59.9 79.9 85.2 85.2Truss Diagonals 28.8 33.4 38.2 49.8 49.8 54.5 54.5Truss Columns 75.2 69.5 69.5 80.3 80.3 83.9 83.9
Sum = 143.0 150.6 164.9 189.9 209.9 223.7 223.7
*Assumed at 50% of above grade sum107.3114.7156.3146.4142.8Sum = 29.731.846.343.543.5Below Grade Columns*6.16.55.85.34.1Below Grade Braces*59.463.592.687.187.1Above Grade Columns12.113.011.610.68.1Above Grade Braces
Trial #5Trial #4Trial #3Trial #2Trial #1Member GroupWeight (tons)
103.5x4 Floors
25.9756Per floor15.710629711277.95528816182.226171199
tonslb/ftftftTotal weightWeightTotal LengthPieces per floorLength
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Structure weight
Structural Redesign
Perimeter Truss TonsTruss Horizontals 85.2Truss Diagonals 54.5Columns 83.9Filler Beams 103.5Bracing 107.3
Total Weight = 434.4
Original System TonsDiagrid 407.0V columns 46.9Bracing 62.3
Total Weight = 516.2
Perimeter Truss reduces structural steel weight by 16%
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Conclusions
Structural Redesign
Undesirable Impact
Little or no Change
Reasonable Success
Reduce structure weight
Reduce connection complexity
Increase viewable window area
Maintain building shape
Maintain interior layout
Maintain floor system
Maintain floor height
Penetration of open spaces
Placement of columns
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
The Perimeter Truss and Braced Frame system is an acceptable alternative.
Structural Redesign
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Daylighting
BenefitsIncreased worker productivityPotentially lower operating costsEnvironmentally soundIncreased heat gain in winter
ChallengesDiscipline coordinationIncreased building glareThermal discomfortSummer heat gain
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Daylighting
ConsiderationsSpaces daylightedWindow quantityWindow geometryGlazing materialWindow coveringFaçade materialArtificial lighting controlInterior finishes
Daylighting
Conclusions
Disadvantage Either AdvantageWorker productivityOperating costsInitial costEnvironmental ImpactDesign coordinationGlareThermal discomfortHeat gainViews
Daylighting is an owner/architect decision
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Construction Study
Column Deformation Incompatibility
Compression Columns
Tension Columns
∆1
5∆1 5∆1
5∆1+ ∆2
Perimeter Truss
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Levels loaded Total after
Level 500 500-600 500-700 500-800 installation
800 1∆ 1∆ 1∆ 1∆ 4∆ 0
700 2∆ 2∆ 2∆ 1∆ 7∆ 1∆
600 3∆ 3∆ 2∆ 1∆ 9∆ 3∆
500 4∆ 3∆ 2∆ 1∆ 10∆ 6∆
Total
Construction Study
Erection Sequence
010∆4∆3∆2∆1∆500
3∆9∆3∆3∆2∆1∆600
4∆7∆2∆2∆2∆1∆700
3∆4∆1∆1∆1∆1∆800
installation500-800500-700500-600500Level
Total afterTotal
Levels loaded
Bottom up
Top Down
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Topic Outline
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)
Building IntroductionStructural System DescriptionProblem StatementDesign PhilosophyRedesign ApproachStructural RedesignDaylighting StudyConstruction StudyRecommendation
Recommendation
Perimeter Truss is an excellent alternative to the diagridLighterLess connectionsBetter window viewsMinimal impact to existing systems
Personal goal accomplished!Unique yet sensible
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Thank YouFamilyFriendsAE ProfessorsDr. Linda HanaganKevin ParfittJonathan DoughertyRicardo PittellaMichael TavolaroIndustry consultants
Picture creditsBernard Tschumi ArchitectsGlaserworksArup
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
9 foot width 18 foot width 27 foot width
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Original layout Changed span direction Heavy cross beam
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Supporting Column
Torsion applied to column
Applied loads
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Compression Columns
Tension Columns
∆1
5∆1 5∆1
5∆1+ ∆2
Perimeter Truss
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional InformationEast-West Direction
Story Drift (inches)
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Acceptable
Level 900 0.65 0.61 0.54 0.42 0.42 0.46
Level 800 0.60 0.57 0.52 0.38 0.38 0.46
Level 700 0.60 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.34 0.46
Level 600 0.54 0.49 0.42 0.26 0.26 0.46
Level 500 0.38 0.35 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.55
Total Drift 2.78 2.58 2.27 1.57 1.58 2.09
2.091.201.041.501.701.90Total Drift
0.550.120.090.150.190.22Level 500
0.460.220.180.300.350.41Level 600
0.460.260.230.340.370.41Level 700
0.460.280.250.320.350.39Level 800
0.460.320.290.400.440.47Level 900
AcceptableTrial
5Trial
4Trial
3Trial
2Trial
1
Story Drift (inches)
North-South Direction
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center
Additional Information
Window change zone
Building perimeter
Recreation Center
Shoemaker Center
Nippert Stadium
Brian Genduso – AE Senior Thesis 2004 University of Cincinnati Athletic Center